Debates of Oct. 17th, 1994

Hazardous Products Act

[Rex Crawford, Liberal, Kent, ON]

moved that Bill C-220, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great hope that I rise today to lead off Private Members' Business on Bill C-220, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act.

I first introduced this bill in June 1993 and reintroduced it on March 7, 1994. The bill is in direct response to a tragic accident in my riding which claimed the life of the 6-year old son of constituents of mine, Robert and Maria Weese of Wallaceburg. I am pleased to say that they will be in the gallery this morning with their children, son Craig, daughters Paula and Kelly.

On June 15, 1992 their son Mark was killed by a poorly designed, poorly maintained portable soccer net. The bill's sole intention is to prevent further tragedies, because the incident in my riding was only one of many. Bill C-220 would oblige users of soccer goals, handball goals and field hockey goals to fix them to the ground so that they do not easily tip over, causing injury or death.

I acknowledge that the bill as specifically written needs additional measures to make it more effective. Today in private members' hour I believe that by raising awareness of this issue and this concern, the rationale and intent of the bill will be established and proven.

I have met with staff and officials from the office of the hon. Minister of Health and I want to thank the minister for her guidance and assistance in this matter. We will all work together to increase the safety of our children. I look forward to pursuing this issue with the minister in the months ahead.

As well, I want to take this opportunity to commend Robert and Maria Weese for their important and heartfelt efforts. They have sent over a thousand letters to soccer associations all across Canada and internationally outlining the dangers of portable nets. The Weeses have compiled some disturbing examples about accidents involving portable equipment.

Since 1979 there have been 15 deaths and five serious injuries in the U.S., but unfortunately there are no Canadian figures, as no one group compiles them, not school boards, not recreation associations.

We have a hodge-podge, a patchwork of information across Canada. One of our main goals must be to increase the amount of information available to users of portable nets.

Bill C-220 is based on recommendations of the coroner's jury inquest in October 1992 after a 14-year old boy was killed by a portable net. This needless death occurred fully four months before Mark Weese's. Why were the recommendations of the inquest not followed?

I was just informed that there was another regrettable death in New Brunswick last month and on October 3 a 12-year old boy died in Detroit, Michigan as a result of a portable soccer goal falling on his chest. Three years ago there was an incident in Newfoundland.

I would like to read into the record the eight recommendations of the Wallaceburg inquest. Before I do I want to suggest that these statements are totally logical and apply common sense. They should have already been in practice before tragedy called attention to this issue.

One, portable goals for indoor use should be made of lightweight materials and either counterweighted with sandbags or anchored with a flexible anchoring system which allows the goal to move in a lateral direction but not tip over.

Two, portable goals for outdoor use should have an anchoring device to allow for stability during the game and which will allow the goal to be stored.

Three, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should amend the Hazardous Products Act to include the equipment and to acquire a standards program from the Canadian Standards Association in order to ensure that manufacturers' products meet minimum safety standards.

Four, suppliers should ensure that all of this equipment meets CSA standards before shipping to purchaser.

Five, consumer and corporate affairs should be notified by coroners' offices, hospitals and police departments immediately of death or catastrophic injuries resulting from accidents involving sports equipment, and they in turn should use their computer system which can have the capacity to highlight incidents and advise the ministry of education, boards of education, the ministry of tourism and recreation, municipalities, associations, suppliers and distributors.

Six, permanent manufacturers' labels should be clearly displayed indicating manufacturer, address and year of manufacture.

Seven, any cautionary advice regarding equipment use and handling should be clearly displayed separately and in a contrasting colour. It should also appear prominently on all product documentation.

Eight, qualified independent safety inspections should be conducted on an annual basis and following repairs or modifications inspection records should be kept on file by the user.

Those are the eight recommendations from October 1992 and yet they are still to be fully implemented. I want to draw attention to this fact by bringing this bill to the House for discussion.

Injury accidents are now the number one killer of children nationwide. In the U.S. they take about 7,200 lives a year. Another 50,000 children suffer permanent injury. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission warned in September 1992 that movable soccer goals can tip over and kill children who climb on them or pull up on the cross bar. In some cases an unanchored goal gets blown down by a gust of wind.

There was a meeting last week of the safety commission in Washington, D.C. It was attended by Canadian representatives who are working with our American colleagues to increase the level of information available and create policies to revamp needless tragedies in the future.

Currently the U.S. safety commission has published a handbook for public playground safety. In chapter 5, subsection 1.1 it notes that secure anchoring is the key factor to stable installation. When properly installed, equipment should withstand the maximum anticipated forces generated by active youth which might cause it to overturn, tip, slide or move in any way.

The Canadian Standards Association has issued guidelines for preventing playground accidents to ensure that equipment is safe. The CSA emphasizes that the base of equipment should be anchored firmly below the ground.

It suggests that parents ask their local municipality or school board how often it inspects equipment. The CSA recommends a daily visual inspection, a more detailed monthly inspection and a comprehensive inspection handling.

Distribution of safety information is the key to all of this but it must get to everyone. There was a fatal net accident in Toronto in 1992. A month later, the net manufacturer, Sports Equipment of Toronto Limited, a national supplier of institutional sporting goods and gymnasium equipment, issued a notice stating that soccers goals, handball goals and field hockey goals be anchored securely to the floor or playing field when in use and stored in such a manner that they will not fall over when not in use.

I commend the company for the urgent notice but it was only sent to school boards in Ontario. It did not extend its warning to municipalities, parks or recreation departments.

In the U.S. officials are coming up with a variety of methods to increase the safety of nets.

According to an article in the Detroit News of April 18, 1993 the Fairfax county, Virginia public school system has become a national leader in implementing the two safeguards that experts consider essential: anchors and warning labels.

Every portable soccer goal in the district has warning labels, black, red and bright yellow. The labels warn that climbing on goals or failing to anchor goals can cause serious injury or death. The Virginia School Board even purchased a corkscrew type anchor about 12 inches long. It is easy to put in and hard to take out.

The institute for the study of youth at the University of Michigan says that no games should be played on fields where goals have not been anchored. The institute wants a local bylaw passed to make the home team coach responsible for anchoring both soccer goals before the start of the scheduled match. If this is not complied with, the match is forfeited.

It is worthwhile to point out that some manufacturers are forming a coalition for safe soccer goals and have begun making models that collapse when not in use. I hope that in Canada we are going in the same direction.

Again, I commend the Weeses for their commitment and dedication and their dogged pursuit of safety during what must be trying times. They have formed a volunteer group in Wallaceburg called PARCS, Parents Assuming Responsibility for Children's Safety. As well, the town of Wallaceburg has undertaken a comprehensive review of park equipment. I applaud it for that but it is not universal. On a recent trip around southern Ontario the Weeses found potentially dangerous and unsafe equipment in Woodstock, St. Thomas and Goderich.

They have written letters to the communities and want the posts fixed. This grassroots, local, neighbour to neighbour effort is to be encouraged, praised and honoured. We need the power of government to lend a helping hand. We must manufacture safer nets and then inform all users of the standards for safety. We

cannot leave it up to the goodwill and good thoughts but to concrete action on the part of regulatory bodies and standards associations.

I welcome the comments of my colleagues on this bill, but more important is the issue symbolized by Bill C-220. If we can prevent one death or tragedy through our discussion this morning then it is all to the good.

Second, it is the purpose of Private Members' Business to allow any member from any party to raise awareness on an issue. It is important to our ridings and to the country at large. In the short time we have this morning I believe we will succeed on both counts.

I am honoured to speak on behalf of my constituents regarding Bill C-220 because it is due to their initiative that this member of Parliament gets the privilege to discuss the bill in the first place.

On a personal note, two years ago I bought a gym set for our grandchildren. The little people are one step ahead of us all the time. It was two swings, a sway bar and a slide. The youngest is three and the other two are four. They found by swinging in unison, they could bring the tripods that held this playstand off the ground. I was in a state of shock.

We have to watch the little people. I think they are more intelligent than we are. They were able to bring the stand two feet off the ground on either side as they were swinging. I made them stop. I was able to get bars that would latch on to the stands, which were 24 inches in depth. I drove them into the ground to support the stand.

The company that built these stands should have included stakes to make them more safe. If 10 or 12-year old children had been on that swing they would have flipped it over quite easily. These little ones at the ages of three and four were certainly working their way up to flipping it over when I made them stop.

We are not aware of the dangers unless we are there to see what can happen even in our own yards. We should support this bill. It lets people know exactly what is happening throughout the country. Children at schools and playgrounds are being killed when they can easily be saved for very few pennies.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the time to speak on the bill this morning. I await hearing other speakers.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak, on behalf of the Official Opposition, to Bill C-220, an Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act.

It is always useful to read the explanatory note: "The purpose of this bill is to make the Hazardous Products Act applicable to soccer goals, handball goals and field hockey goals as restricted products''.

At this stage I would like to commend the hon. member for Kent on his perseverance, since the hon. member introduced this bill during the previous Parliament and had to go through the whole process again when the new Parliament convened. I also want to commend him on his sensitivity, in the light of the tragic experience in his riding of Robert and Maria Weese, who lost their son Mark at the age of six.

Personally, I am very sensitive to such matters because I have a son the same age, and I can imagine the intense grief suffered by these parents after such a tragic event.

The bill would make it compulsory to equip soccer, handball and field hockey goals with an anchoring device that would prevent the goals from tipping over and falling on children playing nearby. I should explain that in most cases, these accidents did not happen during games but when children were playing with the goals on playgrounds and the goals tipped over, or when the goals were tipped over by a gust of wind and fell on a child, causing either serious injury or death.

Finally, it is also the intent of this bill, in accordance with the coroner's recommendation we will look at later on, that nets and goals shall be portable and can be put away after games in order to prevent this kind of accident.

The Mark Weese case is not unique. In fact, it is unfortunate there are so few statistics in Canada on the subject, and it seems neither hospitals nor schools have any obligation to provide information on such cases to any authorities whatsoever. Fortunately, this is not the case in the United States, where the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission monitors this kind of thing. From 1979 to 1992, according to the Commission, many accidents occurred, five causing major injuries, in other words, very serious-you can imagine what that means-and fifteen causing the deaths of individuals, I cannot really say children, ranging in age from three to twenty-two. So that is an indication of the importance of this proposal.

The bill was directly inspired by the coroner's report that was released at the time and to which the hon. member for Kent referred earlier. What struck me particularly was recommendation No. 2, which reads as follows in English:

Portable goals for outdoor use should have an anchoring device to allow for stability during the game and which allows the goal to be stored away.

We therefore support this amendment to the Hazardous Products Act. If the amendment saves only one life, it will have served its purpose.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to support my colleague. Together with my colleague from the Bloc, I commend him for his tenacity in bringing to our attention again something that is very important.

The Weese family took seriously an accident that happened to them and the suffering they went through. They made us all aware of a problem to which I personally was not paying very much attention. When I read the details of the story I was unaware that these goal posts were causing this much trouble, that people actually were being killed. I have now become aware of the problem. That is the negative part.

Here is a family who suffered. A child died and some of us were still unaware of the cause. They took it upon themselves to write thousands of letters to people to make them aware, to make school boards aware, to make parks and recreation departments aware so that out of an accident something good came. I want to thank this family for that.

I want to thank my colleague for drawing this tragedy into the public arena and into the highest court of the land, the Parliament of Canada.

It is easy for us to blame manufacturers for not putting the right signs on equipment and not supplying enough information. It is important that they be charged with that responsibility. School boards and parks and recreation departments should be made aware of this fault so they can anchor the goal posts and make them more safe.

However, I want to emphasize another aspect of this as well. It is the responsibility that we as parents and adults have in our respective communities.

I was impressed to hear the member say that he and the Weese family had travelled around southern Ontario only to discover that there are still places where the safety features are not being observed. They are exercising a responsibility that goes well beyond that of parents by going into the community and extending their care to other people's children. It is a highly commendable action on their part.

In particular, I want to recognize the establishment of the the PARCS, Parents Assuming Responsibility for Children's Safety. It is through their efforts that the hon. member brings this bill to the House to amend the Hazardous Products Act. Through their efforts school boards are now aware of a problem that they were not aware of before. Through their efforts I have become more sensitive to this problem.

My two boys are now grown men. They do not have children but when they do I want them to be able to feel comfortable that their children are safe as far as playground equipment is concerned.

Also I want us to recognize that regardless of whether the goal posts are fixed or movable, or movable ones that are anchored, there is still in the heat and activity of play the tendency to forget that one could be hurt rather badly on these goal posts. We have a responsibility to recognize that our children when they play can be in some danger.

There is no better way to ensure that our children are safe than for us as parents to accept responsibility for our children. In the larger community we as adults should recognize that in a way we are parents to all children and to accept the responsibility that has been demonstrated by the Weeses to make others aware of the danger. We need to alert the Minister of Industry to bring forward legislation to amend the corporate act so that the purpose of the bill can be realized.

I thank the hon. member for bringing this to the House. I am going to support the effort, the spirit and the intent of the bill. I hope that all of us will become more aware and accept responsibility to make our playgrounds safer both on school grounds as well as parks and other recreational facilities.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There are no further speakers. I do not want to surprise the member for Kent. I want all colleagues in the House to understand that under the right of reply, if the member for Kent chooses to have a closing remark on the business that no one else can speak. In fact, he will close the debate at this time.

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rex Crawford, Liberal, Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate members opposite who have spoken in support of the bill. It means a lot to me and it certainly means a lot to the Weese family, who were sitting above us, that people are becoming involved in the issue of the safety hazard of these goal posts.

The hon. member stated he was not aware of it. I was not aware of it either until this came about. I related the situation with my grandchildren who were trying to upset the swings and unfortunately they would have had I not brought an end to it and stabilized the equipment.

I live on the border of Michigan. In the United States soccer is becoming a great sport today. Because of baseball strikes and hockey strikes and one thing and another soccer has taken over. We have a gentleman in Wallaceburg who started soccer many years ago. This gentleman was to be in the Olympics for Italy.

Through his efforts Wallaceburg has some of the best soccer teams not only in Kent but in Ontario and Canada.

In the United States it has become great. They are involved in the safety of these nets. We are so close we can see what they are doing across the border from us. We as Canadians should have been leading the way but again we will be following our American neighbours in more safety.

Once again I thank the hon. members who spoke in support of this bill. We appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for all the work you have done in trying to make everyone aware of the safety of field goal netting whether it is soccer, field hockey, or any other sport. I certainly commend you and wish you the very best.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House suspend until noon in order to resume government business at that time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall I suspend the sitting of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House will suspend until twelve o'clock noon.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.31 a.m.)

The House resumed at 12 p.m.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-49, an act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or repeal certain other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Department Of Agriculture Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, of which I believe you are aware, to draw to your attention a matter which has prevented an amendment to Bill C-49 from appearing on today's Order Paper as it should have.

According to the rules of the House it was required that if an amendment to Bill C-49 was to have appeared on today's Order Paper, thus giving all members the appropriate advance knowledge of the amendment, the amendment was to have been delivered to the Journals branch no later than 2 p.m. on October 7, the last sitting day of the House.

On Thursday, October 13, my office was notified that the amendment I had submitted on time would not be appearing on the Order Paper for today due to the fact that it was not received by the Journals branch until Tuesday, October 11.

Realizing an error had been made, my office contacted the messenger service to seek verification of the time the amendment was picked up and delivered to the Journals branch. According to the messenger service-and I can table that as evidence if you require it, Mr. Speaker-our amendment was picked up by messenger at 10.26 a.m. on Friday, October 7, and was in fact delivered at 10.55 a.m.

I believe I complied as best I could with the conditions set out in the rules to ensure an amendment is provided to the Journals branch within the prescribed timeframe. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request that given the unusual situation I have found myself in, you would consider accepting the amendment put forward as having met the requirements of the rules and that the House proceed with debating the amendment to Bill C-49 as if it had in fact appeared on today's Order Paper.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I thank the hon. member for Malpeque for his representation.

The hon. member raises a point of order in which he argues that he should not be penalized for an envelope leaving his office and not being received at the appropriate time at the other end, at the Journals branch.

The Speaker has verified that the information just given by the member for Malpeque is accurate. However it still places the Chair in a very delicate and unusual situation. Having verified those facts, as related once again by the member for Malpeque, I will allow the member for Malpeque to move his motion.

I would also take the opportunity to prevail on all hon. members to pay particular attention to the notice requirement for items to be placed on the notice paper. It is the responsibility of each individual member to ensure that items are not only sent but are actually received by the Journals branch by the deadline.

When members find themselves in the precarious situation of submitting items very close to the deadline, they may wish either to forewarn the Journals branch or table the items with table officers in the House.

Once again I thank the hon. member for Malpeque for his presentation.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent in the House, at report stage of this bill, for me to

propose an amendment to clause 7 of Bill C-49, an act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there have been some discussions between the parties. In light of the fact that there was some problem with respect to notice and this bill, we are prepared to give consent to the hon. member to move an amendment at report stage. I understand there will be two amendments before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I say to the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre that unanimous consent has been given by the House. While we verify that the amendment is in order, I will begin with the amendment from the member for Malpeque and get back to his shortly thereafter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-49, in clause 7, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 2, with the following:

"before it are replaced by the following:

ANNUAL REPORT WITH ESTIMATES

1. The minister shall cause to be prepared a report showing the operation of the department for every fiscal year and shall include it with the Estimates for the Department for the second fiscal year following the fiscal year covered by the report, when the Estimates are laid before Parliament".

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could we get a written copy of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Malpeque?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Yes, I understand. This document will be distributed as soon as possible.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have moved this amendment to Bill C-49 because I believe there is a need for direct accountability by the line department to the House of Commons and MPs by legislation. I do not believe that guidelines established under another act, in this case the Financial Administration Act, are enough. There must be direct responsibility from the line department itself.

There is involved here the principle of accountability and the principle that departments know they are directly, via legislation, responsible and accountable to MPs in the Chamber, not only in some roundabout way through the minister of a department, then to the minister of another department which may be Treasury Board, and then to the House. That is not a direct line of accountability.

When questioned by myself before the standing committee on agriculture Mr. Loken, special adviser to the assistant deputy minister, policy branch, had the following to say:

The estimates are governed by specific Treasury Board guidelines, not legislation, that each department has to adhere to in deciding exactly what goes into the main estimates.

As I have indicated, I believe guidelines are not enough because guidelines can be changed easily. There has to be direct responsibility from the line department.

Another problem with the procedure is that without presenting an annual report the focus is on the estimates. Estimates are an intent to spend. I have seen it happen this year before the standing committee in terms of the estimates, part III. The report of the past spending of the department is there, but as members we tend to focus on where the future expenditures are to be. As a result there has not been enough discussion on the actual expenditures as compared to previous estimates.

As a former farm leader I have extensively used annual reports of departments and of agencies of departments. It is a good way for people in the community to find out what is going on, to see the structure of the department and basically to understand how things work. They were accessible.

People in the community relate to annual reports more so than estimates. As a result of that experience they ask for and receive annual reports and therefore can get into discussions on recommended changes in terms of policy surrounding the department based on the annual report.

There were one or two arguments put to the committee when it was dealing with the issue. The recommendation by the department to remove annual reports was based on the premise that they cost money and were irrelevant. If annual reports are irrelevant it is because we in the Chamber do not make them relevant. I believe we should make them so.

The other point put forward was that the information was already contained in the estimates, part III. I agree with that point to an extent. The department has argued that if they are in part III the department will be saved money by not requiring annual reports.

My amendment will not cost the department or the treasury of Canada any more money. My amendment ensures by legislation that the department through the minister is directly responsible to the House. The estimates now established in guidelines will be tabled before members of the House so that we can assume our responsibilities as good members of Parliament and ensure the departments we are in charge of administering in a roundabout way are accountable and responsible directly through us to the people of the country.

The purpose of my amendment to this clause is to ensure the line department is directly responsible to members of the House as a result. It should not cost any more money. It can be accomplished through the estimates in that way but it includes in this way the principle of direct accountability to the House.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

I remember clearly, Mr. Speaker, that, in committee, my colleague the hon. member for Lotbinière, here, behind me, had indeed suggested an amendment to Bill C-49 that went exactly along the lines of the one put forth by my hon. colleague from Malpeque. I can tell you that, if the government wants to show any degree of transparency, it must table an annual report in due course instead of hiding behind the pretext that it is going to increase costs by a few dollars. Producers are entitled to know where the money allocated to the Department of Agriculture is going.

As my colleague from Lotbinière indicated at the time, any company, however small, has to file an annual report with its shareholders. Non-profit organizations are bound by their charters to convene all their members and submit an annual report. In my municipality, not only does the Caisse populaire table an annual report, but it also seeks the widest participation possible from its members, organizing a great buffet and even drawing a cash door prize that keeps growing and growing to promote attendance.

I never understood why the Department of Agriculture keeps refusing so obstinately to officially table its annual report. This way, the entire Canadian agricultural community could see and check where the focus of the department is, where exactly the major part of its budget is going. Will one region be favoured at the expense of another? Will Quebec get-because in Quebec, agriculture is very diversified-its fair share in each of the areas that have been mentioned?

Will farming activities be fairly and equitably represented within the budget? Will most of the department's research and development funds be spent exclusively on studies on wheat, barley or corn with hardly any going to the dairy industry or maple syrup?

For all these reasons, I think that the department should listen, that the government should listen carefully to my hon. colleague from Malpeque and adopt this amendment to Bill C-49. I am convinced that studying this annual report will enable farm organization officials to identify future trends and could prove a most interesting forecasting tool for their members.

Therefore, my hon. colleague, who chairs the agriculture joint committee with me, can count on the support of the Bloc Quebecois on his amendment.